A Users' Guide to Measuring Local Governance

More documents

Recommendations

Info

optionally, the peer review comments. The figure 6 shows the Scorecard Summary for the Lofa county in Liberia; while the following table presents the Integrity Indicator scorecards for the Lofa county in Liberia. Gender focus Within the sub-category “Sub National rule of law”, in the set of indicators developed for the Liberian pilot project, there are two indicators assessing whether women have full access to the formal sub-national as well as customary justice system. • Transparency, both in terms of our methodology and findings, characterises the Global Integrity approach while enhancing the robustness and credibility of the findings. • The methodology is continuously revised on the basis of fieldwork experiences. • To minimise the interferences of personality, language and culture, and maximise inter-coder reliability, a codebook defining indicator scoring criteria is provided. Poverty focus Not explicit. However, in the set of indicators developed for the Liberian pilot project, within the sub-category “Sub National rule of law”, there some indicators poverty-related: is an indicator assessing that judicial decisions in the formal sub-national as well as customary justice system are not affected by racial, ethnic, and religious bias, an indicator assessing whether the sub-national government provides adequate legal counsel for defendants in criminal cases who cannot afford it, an indicator assessing whether citizens earning the median yearly income can afford to bring a legal suit. Furthermore, within the sub-category “Sub National Law Enforcement”, there is an indicator assessing whether all citizens regardless of their race, ethnicity, and religion have equal access to the law enforcement agency acting on the sub-national level. Strengths • The Sub-National Integrity Indicators and scorecards for each county, like their national Integrity Indicators counterparts, are characterized by an innovative, award-winning research methodology; a robust peer review process; and start-to-finish transparency. • Some sub-national Integrity Indicators are replicated from Global Integrity’s master national level Integrity Indicators. However, not all of those indicators are applicable at the sub-national level in a given; hence new indicators are developed for each new application to take into account countryspecific concerns in each country covered under our Local Integrity Initiative. • The richness of the data set enables a discussion of how best to allocate limited political and financial capital when the challenges are many and the resources few. Weaknesses • Given that the set of indicators is countryspecific, it is important to foresee the necessary time and capacities to allow adaptations. • Although the tool is applicable at the county, state, provincial, or regional administrative levels, a country-level approach is recommendable (e.g. having a set of “core indicators” common to all, complemented by some “satellite indicators”) • This Sub-national Integrity Indicators are not a tool to assess reduced corruption and increased government accountability. Positive results for indicators should simply be understood to reflect circumstances where key anti-corruption safeguards exist and have been enforced, which while one would hope reduces corruption may not eliminate it entirely. In simple terms, corruption can still occur even where local communities have implemented what are understood to be ideal reforms. • The sub-national Integrity Indicators focus heavily on formal institutions, although it is possible to recognise functional equivalences with the more informal practices and relationships even in the absence of a specific, sought-after institution or mechanism. Coverage The first Local Governance Toolkit (pilot project) was applied in 15 counties in Liberia. Three other toolkits are foreseen for Argentina, Peru and Ecuador. Timeline 2007. On-going. 144 UNDP Oslo Governance Centre
Figure 6: 2008 Scorecard Summary: Lofa Countries are scored on an absolute scale from 0 to 100, based on many indicators. See the full Scorecard for source data and methodology. Red line is this county’s category score, and gray lines are other Liberian county scores 1 Civil Society, Access to Info, Media 2 Government Accountability 3 Civil Service 4 Oversight and Regulation 5 Anti-corruption and Rule of Law 0 20 40 60 80 100 > > Source: Liberia local integrity toolkit: http://local.globalintegrity.org Where to find it http://local.lr2007.globalintegrity.org/ Contact details Global Integrity 1029 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 600, Washington DC 20005 USA Phone: +1 202.449.4100 Fax: +1 866.681.8047 Email: info@globalintegrity.org Website: www.globalintegrity.org Supplementary tools/guidelines Methodology White Paper: http://local.lr2007.globalintegrity.org/Liberial%20Local%20Governance%20Toolkit%20Methodology.pdf A Users’ Guide to Measuring Local Governance 145
Page 1:
A Users’ Guide to Measuring Local
Page 5 and 6:
Contents Acknowledgements Acronyms
Page 7 and 8:
Acknowledgements AUTHORS Alexandra
Page 9 and 10:
Introduction This Guide is intended
Page 11:
1 Assessments of Local Governance
Page 14 and 15:
Decentralized governance for develo
Page 16 and 17:
and local specificity. In order to
Page 18 and 19:
A critical step in developing an as
Page 20 and 21:
Box 5. Key phases in a governance a
Page 22 and 23:
achieve the results. These can incl
Page 24 and 25:
Gender-sensitivity in governance is
Page 26 and 27:
1.11 Key contextual factors influen
Page 28 and 29:
findings of the assessment in ways
Page 30 and 31:
for union parishads (UPs) comprise
Page 32 and 33:
Box 14. Short-, Medium- and Long-Te
Page 35 and 36:
Voices from the Trenches 2 2.1 Choo
Page 37 and 38:
governments, and representatives of
Page 39:
the assessment - in terms of social
Page 43 and 44:
Case Studies 3 The following four f
Page 45 and 46:
Case Study 2: Moving from governmen
Page 47 and 48:
Case Study 3: Balancing comparabili
Page 49 and 50:
Case Study 4: Ensuring uptake of as
Page 51 and 52:
References • Aberbach, J.D. and R
Page 53 and 54:
Source Guide
Page 55 and 56:
The summary matrix also indicates w
Page 57 and 58:
Summary matrix: Main features of to
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Table 3: UGI sub-indices and indica
Page 67 and 68:
Weaknesses • While the UGI helps
Page 69 and 70:
Table 4: Local Governance Barometer
Page 71 and 72:
Table 5: Scale to assess local gove
Page 73 and 74:
Jean-Michel Dufils, PACT (Madagasca
Page 75 and 76:
Table 6: Principles and indicators
Page 77 and 78:
Where to find it The initiative is
Page 79 and 80:
Table 7: Local Democracy Assessment
Page 81 and 82:
Poverty focus Not explicit. The onl
Page 83 and 84:
Local governance performance measur
Page 85 and 86:
Europe. They have first been used i
Page 87 and 88:
Table 9: Methodological Guidelines
Page 89 and 90:
7 Governance Index (Indonesia) Prod
Page 91 and 92:
Table 12: Example of form for colle
Page 93 and 94:
Where to find it The initiative is
Page 95 and 96:
Table 15: MIDAMOS’s themes, indic
Page 97 and 98:
Table 17: Grading System Qualificat
Page 99 and 100:
Table 18: Framework of module on
Page 101 and 102: Key actors/stakeholders The initial
Page 103 and 104: Table 20: Indicators belonging to t
Page 105 and 106: y the State and the municipality as
Page 107 and 108: 11 Council of Europe’s Guide to D
Page 109 and 110: Table 25: Evaluation and comments f
Page 111 and 112: 12 Citizen Report Cards (CRC) Produ
Page 113 and 114: Box 5: Citizen Report Card applicat
Page 115 and 116: 13 Social Audit of Local Governance
Page 117 and 118: Box 7: Sample indicators for Social
Page 119 and 120: 14 Social Audit of Governance and D
Page 121 and 122: Box 8: Report extract - The Social
Page 123 and 124: Table 26: Themes and issues analyse
Page 125 and 126: 15 Local Governance Self-Assessment
Page 127 and 128: Table 27: EXAMPLES OF KEY ISSUES FR
Page 129 and 130: 16 Governance for Local Development
Page 131 and 132: Coverage Following the pilot testin
Page 133 and 134: Table 32: PBGS in Uganda, Tanzania
Page 135 and 136: Table 34: Nepal - Summary of the st
Page 137 and 138: Manual for assessment of Minimum Co
Page 139 and 140: Table 35: LGPMS - perfofrmance them
Page 141 and 142: Coverage The LGPMS was field-tested
Page 143 and 144: 19 Index of Responsibility, Transpa
Page 145 and 146: Gender focus Not explicit. Poverty
Page 147 and 148: Table 39: Dimensions for the standa
Page 149 and 150: 21 Local Integrity Initiative Produ
Page 151: Table 42: Integrity Indicator score
Page 155 and 156: Table 43: Two examples of questions
Page 157: Where to find it Users’ Guide & s
show all

A Users' Guide to Measuring Local Governance

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?